Electric Corvette ? Faster than the New ZR1 ????

[WB9MCW]

To see is to Believe!!!

Watch it and weep!!! This is the FUTURE

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/vide...ic-Drag-Racing

[GOLDCYLON]

Yep thats why in 15 years well will all be driving the NEW ZR1. Great vid thanks for the post up

[Jason 91]

That's interesting. Does any do this mod for the ZR-1? LOL, I just can't get excited about it...

Jason

That form of electric is not the future. Hydrogen is. Battery technology is just not there. Takes to long to charge and the adverse quality of weight.

[WB9MCW]

Seeing is believing >>> http://www.teslamotors.com/performan...and_torque.php

100% Torque, 100% of the Time

The Tesla Roadster delivers full availability of performance every moment you are in the car, even while at a stoplight. Its peak torque begins at 0 rpm and stays powerful at 14,000 rpm.

This is the precise opposite of what you experience with a gasoline engine, which has very little torque at a low rpm and only reaches peak torque in a narrow rpm range. This forces you to make frequent gear changes to maintain optimal torque. With the Tesla Roadster, you get great acceleration and the highest energy efficiency at the same time. All while requiring no special driving skills to enjoy it. This makes the Tesla Roadster six times as efficient as the best sports cars while producing one-tenth of the pollution.

---------------------------------------------

R&Track says---

Our time with the Tesla and electrical options available to us precluded any recharging. Here's the deal, however: A dedicated 220–240 volt/70-amp source (as provided by the car's garage-installed High Power Connector) could recharge to full in perhaps 3½ hours. Unplug one's 220V/30A home clothes dryer, and it would take somewhat longer. If all one had was a measly 110V hookup, overnight would do fine. The recharge junction, by the way, resides beneath the Tesla/nee Elise's "fuel-filler" flap on the bodywork's left flying buttress.

As noted in our previous reports, the Roadster's interior is rather more habitable than an Elise's. One reason for this is a narrow center console to the betterment of thigh clearance (appreciated by your larger-than-average-bear author). I must confess, however, I avoided clambering in while the soft top was still in position. Top-up, the Roadster isn't my car.

Fit and finish of our Tesla were exemplary, seemingly rather more tightly assembled than the last Elise I recalled. Portions of exposed carbon fiber gave a nicely technical appearance to surfaces. The leather trim contributed an upmarket feel appropriate for a car of this price range.

Which price range is that? The list price is $109,000; options brought ours to $118,400. A goodly number of the car's initial 1000 customers paid a bit less; the first 25 cars went to investors (who likely contributed rather more). What with a measured ramp-up of production — and a soft economy — I suspect it'll be some time before Tesla probes the Lotus Hethel works' upper bound of 2000 electric sports cars per year.

In the meantime, though, we are delighted to have spent some "quality" — and instrumented — time with the Roadster. We're also pleased to see its extravagant claims confirmed. Our next step: maybe installing a 230V/70A hookup in the R&T garage and posting a "long-term" pitch to San Carlos, California.
----------------------------------------

Roadster Efficiency and Range
by JB Straubel
CTO

published Monday, December 22nd, 2008

With more than 100 Roadsters delivered to customers so far and more on the road each week, it’s natural for some customers to run “experiments” on them. Because we have such an entrepreneurial and highly technical customer base, many of these experiments are quite detailed and attempt to answer questions that we have in some cases never discussed publicly.

One of the most common and tricky experiments is testing how far the Roadster will go on a single charge in various driving conditions. For the latest powertrain configuration (powertrain 1.5), we have demonstrated dynamometer test results of 244 miles range in a complicated combination of highway and city drive cycles defined by the EPA.

the rest here >>> http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=70

SORRY JEFFVETTE THE FUTURE IS HERE ALREADY ALIVE AND WELL IN KALIFORNIA!!

A Peaceful Solution to Oil Wars

You need only open the morning paper to understand the importance — and urgency — of America‘s reduced reliance on foreign oil. The instability of the Middle East makes our 58% dependence on foreign oil a dangerous and costly proposition.

Look even closer and you'll see that the lion's share of American oil use (nearly two-thirds of our consumption) is tied directly to transportation. If ever there was a time when a gasoline-free car was needed, that time is now.

[Aurora40]

Wow, a gutted purpose built racer is faster than street cars. What a shocker! And all you have to give up is the whole backseat and trunk!

Also the only petroleum burners that dump carcinogens into the air are diesels. Which of course is what they focused the camera on after saying that.

http://www.hostedfile.com/videos/573...s-electric-car

[Aurora40]

Originally Posted by WB9MCW

the rest here >>> http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=70

That is actually quite interesting. Initially Tesla was very guarded about giving out any specific details, and just kept assuring people the car had a ~250 mile range. It looks like it's optimal cruise speed is around 20mph which doesn't seem to fare as favorably as a car which is more like 60mph.

Though they still seem to be guarded about things like the headlight, a/c, radio, and other accessory drains.

I think you could figure it out some though. Headlights likely use 100-250 Watts depending (considering all lights on not just headlights). At 60mph it is using 250Wh/mile * 60 miles = 15,000 Wh. 250Wh additional would just be another 2% load, so it might not matter that much. I suspect A/C would be a lot greater. A booming stereo might be also.

[QB93Z]

The bigger picture that is not discussed by the electric car proponents is that the electricity to charge the cars batteries comes from a power generation system that for the most part burns fossil fuel. So the claim that the car goes 250 miles with no emmissions in totally wrong! All the owner/driver is doing is transferring his personal emmissions (from a tailpipe) to the coal/oil/natural gas fired electric generating plant.

This is typical muddle-headed thinking that is so prevelant today. I am afraid that ethonol is another great example of the pop culture shell came that is being played on a well-meaning public. The cost of resources and energy (dollars and emmissions) to produce a gallon of bio-fuel is not free. It is a shell game. The emissions "cost" is just being moved to a different part of the process. Tail pipe emissions goes down, but the energy consumed to make the bio-fuel is not emissions free.

Another consideration is that if a large percentage of the cars on the road in a large city were electric powered, all of the energy that used to come from gasoline would have to come from the home electric distribution system. I doubt that the current electric power distribution system (The Grid) could handle that much load. In some places, the grid cannot handle the current summer electrical load without brownouts and disruptions.

Jim

[WB9MCW]

"All the owner/driver is doing is transferring his personal emissions (from a tailpipe) to the coal/oil/natural gas fired electric generating plant."

In Illinois we have 5 Nuclear plants the most of any state in the USA. I think only two of the coal versions and one is next to where the Zion plant was that was shutdown because it was old and out of compliance. Nuclear Power is the future clean and efficient just like the battery tech eventually becoming the future for passenger cars. It is just a matter of time and public acceptance of the realities. The good news is that electric cars do perform well.

"I doubt that the current electric power distribution system (The Grid) could handle that much load. In some places, the grid cannot handle the current summer electrical load without brownouts and disruptions."

This is very true and needs to change. With solar and wind power generation the grid needs big revamping and upgrades now!

It is the airplane, large truck and bus transportation that is the real challenge for finding a solution as far as fossil fuel alternates are concerned. Natural gas, hydrogen or biofuels may be the solution there and the Federal government has to take the lead with their fleet to prove the commitment to the environment and the private sector will follow by law enforcement.

Originally Posted by WB9MCW

SORRY JEFFVETTE THE FUTURE IS HERE ALREADY ALIVE AND WELL IN KALIFORNIA!!

Cost is over 100k. Top speed is 120 mph. You need a 220v plug that "could" recharge the car in 3.5 hours. Otherwise it's overnight on 110. Tesla is just a modified Elise. The batteries weigh a ton, the handling is poor due to that, and also the tires the Tesla comes on are specifically designed to reduce rolling resistance. Not for optimum traction.

On the track the Tesla is good for about 50 laps then it's off to be recharged, and the engine also overheats as well when used at WOT for extended periods of time.

The Tesla is just a gimmick to sell something to a celebrity who thinks they are doing something good for the environment. As mentioned, you need to get off the grid to have a true zero emission vehicle.

An electric car that runs on Hydrogen is where it's at.